I had an interesting interaction this week with a presenter from Drupalcamp Atlanta this week. I had emailed him asking about getting the powerpoint presentation for a session he did that I couldn't attend. (There were tons of choices so for every session I went to, I missed 4 or 5) He's a Drupal guy that works for himself doing contract work, so he was interested in getting me what I want and seeing if I might be able to send any work his way. But once he found out that I worked for a religious organization he was no longer interested in working for us or in giving me a copy of the presentation. He feels that religion is very harmful.

He was very polite, but I would have loved to been able to have a copy of his presentation. I hear a lot of people complaining about religion/religious groups - but I don't too often find someone who would take that kind of stance about it. It's his right, and he did discuss it with me and was very rational, nice, etc.

On a somewhat related note the North American DrupalCon for 2010 will be in San Francisco in April. Hopefully I will be able to attend. I learned so much at the Atlanta DrupalCamp. They are doing a DrupalCamp in Orlando too. Which I'll attend for sure. It's really a cool community and a great tool.

He was simply consistent. If he is one of those so called "New Atheists", then he is convinced that religion is evil. Durpal is a CMS, albeit an open source one but his presentation probably wasn't. He, as such, knows that the system is going to be used for dissemination of information he doesn't agree with and will spread "Evil". From his point of view, helping you is helping Evil. Morally, his stance was 100% right.

Drupal is open source, you get the documentation... What he distilled (his work) does

I agree. This isn't something I run into a whole lot, that is all. Though I tend not to think of facilitating speech to be facilitating harm. But I guess I'm biased as right now there is an increasing movement in certain circles to view my speech as worthy of control.

Control is not the same as "not supporting". Consider it this way: if you are a Neo-Nazi and you approach someone who has a printing press to print your propaganda. Is the printing press owner controlling your speech when he refuses? He isn't, he merely isn't supporting the speech you have,

I know I Godwinded myself, right there, but it is meant to bring across the point. The Neo-Nazi has his whole right to buy his own printing press (or find a more sympathetic printer), and as such his free speech has n

I just want to clarify that I see movements to control speech - as in the government limiting speech and that is what I was referring to at the end. I don't think this guy is trying to control mine. I can see how I was pretty ambiguous there. I think I see trends in government limiting speech as possibly limiting my speech and so it makes me more sensitive to the issue as a whole.Not only would I help Richard Dawkins set up a web site, I already recommend him to others as someone to read and list

Not only would I help Richard Dawkins set up a web site, I already recommend him to others as someone to read and listen to.

Very laudable. Also, it illustrates that it was a bad example. The main reason of course that being able to do such a thing (setting up a very high volume website for a famous scientist) would look like a gem on your CV. Perhaps better examples would have been Pat Condell or Christopher Hitchins who are much more biting on religion that Richard Dawkins. Even then the apparent gain

I really did think about it. Though I didn't think about helping Dawkins from a perspective of how it would help me out - so it wasn't a bad example. It really wouldn't be a resume building activity for me.I don't have a congregation per se - but I do raise the funds that cover the cost of my employment. There are churches and individuals that donate money to my organization so that I can do the work I do. And I do consider them when I make certain types of decisions, because I think this is rig

Science is a great tool for dealing with certain parts of life, but it is limited and there are things it cannot touch upon.

See, this is where the reasonable Christians and we go apart. You are 100% right that God cannot be disproven or proven, BUT we have probability and that really speaks against God. However, you don't need to accept that. That's okay with me as long as you do not try to indoctrinate other people. Fine with me. However saying that the existence of any thing out of science is not ten

I will have to respectfully disagree on the historical evidence surrounding Jesus Christ. I believe he lived, died and rose from the dead. Everything pretty much builds from that.I don't have an 'air tight' argument for the existence of God. There are many things I don't fully understand or have the ability to reconcile. So I'm always looking for opportunities to engage in conversations that will help me work through it all.

So you're saying you're messing with something that's part of an anti-traditional, anti-establishment movement, and you're surprised to find someone anti-traditional and anti-establishment in it? Wow. The F/OSS culture is completely based on redefining what is "evil", so how could you have possibly expected to run into someone who actually does that very thing, right?

I didn't say anything about being surprised, I just found it interesting.

But more to your point, I don't think he really fits into the context you paint. He's a consultant that creates solutions using software that happens to be FOSS. But he himself is in the middle of a very traditional business model and his initial approach to the situation was exactly what I would expect from anyone in his line of work.